B777-300 vs A340-300 Cargo Uplift
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Charlotte and NYC
Age: 45
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
some limited help
Well,
by rights I've not reached a level of experience to really get too in depth here.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/air...s/7772sec3.pdf
I was going to attempt to figure it out but I can't find comparable stats on Airbus' website. Heres some charts from Boeing for that half of the Eq.
Looks Like the 777-300 allows a ZFW around 480,000#/220,000Kg at 4000nm. OEW of the baseline version (not high gross weight option) at the high end appears to be 299,550#/135,850Kg. Total payload 180,450#/ 84,150Kg (minus the pax @ 375*170#=63750#/28977Kg, then there is the luggage, whats the allowance again?) ~100,000# @std atm? Maybe Im in over my head-its 3 years since I was taught this and I haven't had to use it since.
I would hazard a guess that since you are talking about the -300 airbus, it will be performance limited before it hits the airframe limit, especially if its hot.
I am interested to hear what those more experienced have to say (so kindly don't crucify me if I am wrong)
FlyVMO
by rights I've not reached a level of experience to really get too in depth here.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/air...s/7772sec3.pdf
I was going to attempt to figure it out but I can't find comparable stats on Airbus' website. Heres some charts from Boeing for that half of the Eq.
Looks Like the 777-300 allows a ZFW around 480,000#/220,000Kg at 4000nm. OEW of the baseline version (not high gross weight option) at the high end appears to be 299,550#/135,850Kg. Total payload 180,450#/ 84,150Kg (minus the pax @ 375*170#=63750#/28977Kg, then there is the luggage, whats the allowance again?) ~100,000# @std atm? Maybe Im in over my head-its 3 years since I was taught this and I haven't had to use it since.
I would hazard a guess that since you are talking about the -300 airbus, it will be performance limited before it hits the airframe limit, especially if its hot.
I am interested to hear what those more experienced have to say (so kindly don't crucify me if I am wrong)
FlyVMO
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B777-300 compared to A340-300
Base data
4000nm still air distance.
Assumed 50 knot headwind.
Normal reserves (not LHR or island).
100 kg per pax+bags.
I kept the pax capacity the same at 263 so as to better compare cargo capacity the aircraft are pretty close in pax capacity anyway.
Both cruising at FL370, with allowance for taxi, takeoff and landing.
Not airport limited.
Analysis results
B777-300 with GE engines and max gross weight option
33,676 kgs cargo. Limited by takeoff weight.
A340-300 WV027 variant
14,771 kgs cargo. Limited by maximum zero fuel weight.
Base data
4000nm still air distance.
Assumed 50 knot headwind.
Normal reserves (not LHR or island).
100 kg per pax+bags.
I kept the pax capacity the same at 263 so as to better compare cargo capacity the aircraft are pretty close in pax capacity anyway.
Both cruising at FL370, with allowance for taxi, takeoff and landing.
Not airport limited.
Analysis results
B777-300 with GE engines and max gross weight option
33,676 kgs cargo. Limited by takeoff weight.
A340-300 WV027 variant
14,771 kgs cargo. Limited by maximum zero fuel weight.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't find the A340 figures either but I assume the enquiry is related to a specific airline on a certain route system...
Just that the A340-300 isn't really an alternative to the B777-300 aside from weights and accomodation, the 777 is a fair bit wider (and longer) so if there's cash to be made from freight then the B777 would be the a/c of choice. The A340-600 is more comparable to the B777-300 HGW (more so the ER) apples for apples.
I'll continue the dredging of Google for facts however....
PP
Just that the A340-300 isn't really an alternative to the B777-300 aside from weights and accomodation, the 777 is a fair bit wider (and longer) so if there's cash to be made from freight then the B777 would be the a/c of choice. The A340-600 is more comparable to the B777-300 HGW (more so the ER) apples for apples.
I'll continue the dredging of Google for facts however....
PP
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OverRun,
From the very top of my head: Isnīt WV027 the "special" WV for China Southwest, with the "interesting" Design Service Goal?
If this is the case, then the payload would be higher for a common A343, I suppose...
Need to check in the books...
Cheers,
J.V.
From the very top of my head: Isnīt WV027 the "special" WV for China Southwest, with the "interesting" Design Service Goal?
If this is the case, then the payload would be higher for a common A343, I suppose...
Need to check in the books...
Cheers,
J.V.
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jettison valve - the ZFW for most of the variants varies from 174000 to 181000, with most at 178000 kg [which I used].
I didn't know that the WV 027 variant was for China Southwest. The A340-313 WV 027 aircraft design was varied to operate as a [higher cycle =] short range variant and so they have their design service goal increased to 30 000 cycles respectively 60 000 FH, provided a special inspection/MRB is followed. All the variants have the same max structural payload. Love to know more if you find something.
Pickled Props makes the good point that the two are rather different, and I've got my own strong opinion about preferring the 777 to pax in, but I don't suppose the cargo cares.
I didn't know that the WV 027 variant was for China Southwest. The A340-313 WV 027 aircraft design was varied to operate as a [higher cycle =] short range variant and so they have their design service goal increased to 30 000 cycles respectively 60 000 FH, provided a special inspection/MRB is followed. All the variants have the same max structural payload. Love to know more if you find something.
Pickled Props makes the good point that the two are rather different, and I've got my own strong opinion about preferring the 777 to pax in, but I don't suppose the cargo cares.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgot again to have a look at the WVs today. 
Anyway:
http://www.airbusworld.com/portal/PT...2766&Name=.pdf
... quotes WV027 only for China (page 19), supporting my China Southwest thesis.
I´ll dig around a bit more...
Cheers,
J.V.
Anyway:
http://www.airbusworld.com/portal/PT...2766&Name=.pdf
... quotes WV027 only for China (page 19), supporting my China Southwest thesis.
I´ll dig around a bit more...
Cheers,
J.V.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
volume is usually the limiting factor
Commercially most cargo consists of consolidated shipments
ie consignments from multiple shippers to multiple recipients
from freight forwarders
so these guys pay per KG or per 6000 cubic centimetres of product whichever is greater
These guys are very skilled at "killing volume" which means they gather very dense shipments ie more than 300KG per cubic metre
and not so dense shipments ie less than 166KG/Cubic metre and consolidate them so they can get and ideal mix
so for example they have 1 shpt 1000 kg with a volume of 1 cubic metre
and another shipment 100 kgs with a volume of 4 cubic metres
they tender the shpt to the airline declaring the weight as 1100 KG and the volume is 5mc so they pay the airline on weight basis
maybe they 1100 KG at 1 GBP per Kg total 1100 GBP
then the forwarder charge their customers
for the 1000 kg shpt they charge the client on weight so maybe a 10 per cent mark up so they charge 1100 GBP
for the shpt which is 100 kg but 4 MC volume this will be charged on volume
to the client so the "volume weight" is 666.5 kg
they charge 666.5 * 1 = 665.5 again maybe 10% mark up = 733.04
so the forwarders total revenue is 1833.04
outlay is 1100 GBP
profit is 733.04 GBP
maybe a slight extreme example but hopefully you get the picture
its rare to be able to get max weight pallets in all positions unless a specific
dense commodity eg wine whisky meat
ie consignments from multiple shippers to multiple recipients
from freight forwarders
so these guys pay per KG or per 6000 cubic centimetres of product whichever is greater
These guys are very skilled at "killing volume" which means they gather very dense shipments ie more than 300KG per cubic metre
and not so dense shipments ie less than 166KG/Cubic metre and consolidate them so they can get and ideal mix
so for example they have 1 shpt 1000 kg with a volume of 1 cubic metre
and another shipment 100 kgs with a volume of 4 cubic metres
they tender the shpt to the airline declaring the weight as 1100 KG and the volume is 5mc so they pay the airline on weight basis
maybe they 1100 KG at 1 GBP per Kg total 1100 GBP
then the forwarder charge their customers
for the 1000 kg shpt they charge the client on weight so maybe a 10 per cent mark up so they charge 1100 GBP
for the shpt which is 100 kg but 4 MC volume this will be charged on volume
to the client so the "volume weight" is 666.5 kg
they charge 666.5 * 1 = 665.5 again maybe 10% mark up = 733.04
so the forwarders total revenue is 1833.04
outlay is 1100 GBP
profit is 733.04 GBP
maybe a slight extreme example but hopefully you get the picture
its rare to be able to get max weight pallets in all positions unless a specific
dense commodity eg wine whisky meat
